Quare sub urbanus areas combibo , secui II

[William]

Translation: Why suburbs suck, part two

This time I shall focus on the the more material, or structural,
reasons for whats wrong with modern suburbs.

First off, they are built in winding, curving roads which make it
difficult to navigate through, it's inefficient gas wise, and is just
a lack of common sense. It as well makes it impossible to install any
sort of mass transit system.

Second, they are built without sidewalks as to promote driving instead
of walking. Roads are for cars, not 4 year olds. Or any year old for
that matter.

Thirdly, the only stores in suburbs are large strip malls placed in a
way where everyone must drive everywhere to get anywhere.

Does anyone have any problems with these three straight forward
statements?

[1100GS_rider]

Post by William
Translation: Why suburbs suck, part two
This time I shall focus on the the more material, or structural,
reasons for whats wrong with modern suburbs.
First off, they are built in winding, curving roads which make it
difficult to navigate through, it's inefficient gas wise, and is just
a lack of common sense. It as well makes it impossible to install any
sort of mass transit system.
Second, they are built without sidewalks as to promote driving instead
of walking. Roads are for cars, not 4 year olds. Or any year old for
that matter.
Thirdly, the only stores in suburbs are large strip malls placed in a
way where everyone must drive everywhere to get anywhere.
Does anyone have any problems with these three straight forward
statements?

They are opinions, not facts. But that's okay.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by William
Does anyone have any problems with these three straight forward
statements?

Yes. They don't describe most suburbs. Places like that, few people
will want to live, work, or shop, so few places are built like that.

Here in Northern Virginia, I can easily walk to a Metro station, to
numerous grocery stores, or even to a full-sized mall. The roads are
mostly straight, and nearly all of them have sidewalks.

[William]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by William
Does anyone have any problems with these three straight forward
statements?

Yes. They don't describe most suburbs. Places like that, few people
will want to live, work, or shop, so few places are built like that.
Here in Northern Virginia, I can easily walk to a Metro station, to
numerous grocery stores, or even to a full-sized mall. The roads are
mostly straight, and nearly all of them have sidewalks.
--
Keith F. Lynch -http://keithlynch.net/
Please seehttp://keithlynch.net/email.htmlbefore emailing me.

Perhaps it is you who are ignorant about "most suburbs."

[Pat]

Post by William
Translation: Why suburbs suck, part two
This time I shall focus on the the more material, or structural,
reasons for whats wrong with modern suburbs.
First off, they are built in winding, curving roads which make it
difficult to navigate through, it's inefficient gas wise, and is just
a lack of common sense. It as well makes it impossible to install any
sort of mass transit system.
Second, they are built without sidewalks as to promote driving instead
of walking. Roads are for cars, not 4 year olds. Or any year old for
that matter.
Thirdly, the only stores in suburbs are large strip malls placed in a
way where everyone must drive everywhere to get anywhere.
Does anyone have any problems with these three straight forward
statements?

Well to start with, it depends on how you define suburbs. If you live
in Manhattan, you consider Yonkers a suburb. If you live in Yonkers,
you consider it a city.

Second, while some suburbs are like that, not all are.

Third, if people didn't want to live there, then why do developers
keep building them and people keep buying them.

Finally, if no one wants to shop at the big box stores, how do you
explain all of the people in them?

[William]

Post by Pat

Post by William
Translation: Why suburbs suck, part two
This time I shall focus on the the more material, or structural,
reasons for whats wrong with modern suburbs.
First off, they are built in winding, curving roads which make it
difficult to navigate through, it's inefficient gas wise, and is just
a lack of common sense. It as well makes it impossible to install any
sort of mass transit system.
Second, they are built without sidewalks as to promote driving instead
of walking. Roads are for cars, not 4 year olds. Or any year old for
that matter.
Thirdly, the only stores in suburbs are large strip malls placed in a
way where everyone must drive everywhere to get anywhere.
Does anyone have any problems with these three straight forward
statements?

Well to start with, it depends on how you define suburbs. If you live
in Manhattan, you consider Yonkers a suburb. If you live in Yonkers,
you consider it a city.
Second, while some suburbs are like that, not all are.
Third, if people didn't want to live there, then why do developers
keep building them and people keep buying them.
Finally, if no one wants to shop at the big box stores, how do you
explain all of the people in them?

First, I'm talking about the traditional cookie cutter cul-da-sac type
suburb.

Second, I know. I am addressing those specific suburbs that infact ARE
like this.

Third, for some, living in a city is too expensive, for others they
don't want to live in a city.
Keep in mind I am not arguing for everybody to move to a city, but
rather on how suburbs are built so badly.

Finally, when did I say anything about nobody wanting to live in big
box stores?

[Pat]

Post by William

Post by William
Translation: Why suburbs suck, part two
This time I shall focus on the the more material, or structural,
reasons for whats wrong with modern suburbs.
First off, they are built in winding, curving roads which make it
difficult to navigate through, it's inefficient gas wise, and is just
a lack of common sense. It as well makes it impossible to install any
sort of mass transit system.
Second, they are built without sidewalks as to promote driving instead
of walking. Roads are for cars, not 4 year olds. Or any year old for
that matter.
Thirdly, the only stores in suburbs are large strip malls placed in a
way where everyone must drive everywhere to get anywhere.
Does anyone have any problems with these three straight forward
statements?

Well to start with, it depends on how you define suburbs.  If you live
in Manhattan, you consider Yonkers a suburb.  If you live in Yonkers,
you consider it a city.
Second, while some suburbs are like that, not all are.
Third, if people didn't want to live there, then why do developers
keep building them and people keep buying them.
Finally, if no one wants to shop at the big box stores, how do you
explain all of the people in them?

First, I'm talking about the traditional cookie cutter cul-da-sac type
suburb.
Second, I know. I am addressing those specific suburbs that infact ARE
like this.
Third, for some, living in a city is too expensive, for others they
don't want to live in a city.
Keep in mind I am not arguing for everybody to move to a city, but
rather on how suburbs are built so badly.

But a lot of people talk with their pocket books and buy there.

Post by William
Finally, when did I say anything about nobody wanting to live in big
box stores?- Hide quoted text -

Oops you said "strip malls". SSDD.

Post by William
- Show quoted text -

[William]

Post by Pat

Post by William

Post by Pat

Post by William
Translation: Why suburbs suck, part two
This time I shall focus on the the more material, or structural,
reasons for whats wrong with modern suburbs.
First off, they are built in winding, curving roads which make it
difficult to navigate through, it's inefficient gas wise, and is just
a lack of common sense. It as well makes it impossible to install any
sort of mass transit system.
Second, they are built without sidewalks as to promote driving instead
of walking. Roads are for cars, not 4 year olds. Or any year old for
that matter.
Thirdly, the only stores in suburbs are large strip malls placed in a
way where everyone must drive everywhere to get anywhere.
Does anyone have any problems with these three straight forward
statements?

Well to start with, it depends on how you define suburbs. If you live
in Manhattan, you consider Yonkers a suburb. If you live in Yonkers,
you consider it a city.
Second, while some suburbs are like that, not all are.
Third, if people didn't want to live there, then why do developers
keep building them and people keep buying them.
Finally, if no one wants to shop at the big box stores, how do you
explain all of the people in them?

First, I'm talking about the traditional cookie cutter cul-da-sac type
suburb.
Second, I know. I am addressing those specific suburbs that infact ARE
like this.
Third, for some, living in a city is too expensive, for others they
don't want to live in a city.
Keep in mind I am not arguing for everybody to move to a city, but
rather on how suburbs are built so badly.

But a lot of people talk with their pocket books and buy there.

Post by William
Finally, when did I say anything about nobody wanting to live in big
box stores?- Hide quoted text -

Oops you said "strip malls". SSDD.

Post by William
- Show quoted text -

When did I say anything about nobody wants to shop at strip malls then?

[Pat]

Post by Pat

Post by William

Post by William
Translation: Why suburbs suck, part two
This time I shall focus on the the more material, or structural,
reasons for whats wrong with modern suburbs.
First off, they are built in winding, curving roads which make it
difficult to navigate through, it's inefficient gas wise, and is just
a lack of common sense. It as well makes it impossible to install any
sort of mass transit system.
Second, they are built without sidewalks as to promote driving instead
of walking. Roads are for cars, not 4 year olds. Or any year old for
that matter.
Thirdly, the only stores in suburbs are large strip malls placed in a
way where everyone must drive everywhere to get anywhere.
Does anyone have any problems with these three straight forward
statements?

Well to start with, it depends on how you define suburbs.  If you live
in Manhattan, you consider Yonkers a suburb.  If you live in Yonkers,
you consider it a city.
Second, while some suburbs are like that, not all are.
Third, if people didn't want to live there, then why do developers
keep building them and people keep buying them.
Finally, if no one wants to shop at the big box stores, how do you
explain all of the people in them?

First, I'm talking about the traditional cookie cutter cul-da-sac type
suburb.
Second, I know. I am addressing those specific suburbs that infact ARE
like this.
Third, for some, living in a city is too expensive, for others they
don't want to live in a city.
Keep in mind I am not arguing for everybody to move to a city, but
rather on how suburbs are built so badly.

But a lot of people talk with their pocket books and buy there.

Post by William
Finally, when did I say anything about nobody wanting to live in big
box stores?- Hide quoted text -

Oops you said "strip malls".  SSDD.

Post by William
- Show quoted text -

When did I say anything about nobody wants to shop at strip malls then?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hey, glad to see you're back. Hope your grades are good.

You didn't say they no one wanted to shop there. You said they were
part of what's wrong with suburbs.

"This time I shall focus on the the more material, or structural,
reasons for whats wrong with modern suburbs.
<snip>
Thirdly, the only stores in suburbs are large strip malls placed in a
way where everyone must drive everywhere to get anywhere."

But while you view them as a problem, lots and lots of people view
them as a benefit.

Personally, I don't care either way. I don't shop in cities and try
not to shop in suburbs. I think the whole shopping thing is over
rated. But different things for different strokes. You can have your
cities and other can have their suburbs. Me, I'll stay in the sticks.
And we'll all be happy.

[William]

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by William

Post by Pat

Post by William
Translation: Why suburbs suck, part two
This time I shall focus on the the more material, or structural,
reasons for whats wrong with modern suburbs.
First off, they are built in winding, curving roads which make it
difficult to navigate through, it's inefficient gas wise, and is just
a lack of common sense. It as well makes it impossible to install any
sort of mass transit system.
Second, they are built without sidewalks as to promote driving instead
of walking. Roads are for cars, not 4 year olds. Or any year old for
that matter.
Thirdly, the only stores in suburbs are large strip malls placed in a
way where everyone must drive everywhere to get anywhere.
Does anyone have any problems with these three straight forward
statements?

Well to start with, it depends on how you define suburbs. If you live
in Manhattan, you consider Yonkers a suburb. If you live in Yonkers,
you consider it a city.
Second, while some suburbs are like that, not all are.
Third, if people didn't want to live there, then why do developers
keep building them and people keep buying them.
Finally, if no one wants to shop at the big box stores, how do you
explain all of the people in them?

First, I'm talking about the traditional cookie cutter cul-da-sac type
suburb.
Second, I know. I am addressing those specific suburbs that infact ARE
like this.
Third, for some, living in a city is too expensive, for others they
don't want to live in a city.
Keep in mind I am not arguing for everybody to move to a city, but
rather on how suburbs are built so badly.

But a lot of people talk with their pocket books and buy there.

Post by William
Finally, when did I say anything about nobody wanting to live in big
box stores?- Hide quoted text -

Oops you said "strip malls". SSDD.

Post by William
- Show quoted text -

When did I say anything about nobody wants to shop at strip malls then?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hey, glad to see you're back. Hope your grades are good.
You didn't say they no one wanted to shop there. You said they were
part of what's wrong with suburbs.
"This time I shall focus on the the more material, or structural,
reasons for whats wrong with modern suburbs.
<snip>
Thirdly, the only stores in suburbs are large strip malls placed in a
way where everyone must drive everywhere to get anywhere."
But while you view them as a problem, lots and lots of people view
them as a benefit.
Personally, I don't care either way. I don't shop in cities and try
not to shop in suburbs. I think the whole shopping thing is over
rated. But different things for different strokes. You can have your
cities and other can have their suburbs. Me, I'll stay in the sticks.
And we'll all be happy.

Okay well I guess I was not clear enough. There is nothing wrong with
big box stores, it's just how they are placed in one area of a suburb
which is inconvenient for about 90% of the people living their.

[Jack May]

Post by William
Okay well I guess I was not clear enough. There is nothing wrong with
big box stores, it's just how they are placed in one area of a suburb
which is inconvenient for about 90% of the people living their.

Huh? That makes absolutely no sense. People build big box stores so nobody
can shop in them? Who would do that?

Big box stores are usually in multiple places since people will not
typically drive a long distance to go shopping

[William]

Post by Jack May

Post by William
Okay well I guess I was not clear enough. There is nothing wrong with
big box stores, it's just how they are placed in one area of a suburb
which is inconvenient for about 90% of the people living their.

Huh? That makes absolutely no sense. People build big box stores so nobody
can shop in them? Who would do that?
Big box stores are usually in multiple places since people will not
typically drive a long distance to go shopping

The fact that you have to get in your car to go shopping should be
considered inconvenient to you.

[Jack May]

Post by William
The fact that you have to get in your car to go shopping should be
considered inconvenient to you.

So you think there should be a Costco, Home Depot, and multiple other big
box stores within walking distance of every house. How can that be even
remotely possible? Big box stores draw major percentages of people because
of their large selection and lower prices.

Getting in a car to go shopping is far less inconvenient than having to shop
at tiny stores all around you at extremely high prices with extremely
limited selection. Obviously you have absolutely no idea of what you are
talking about, if you are not totally insane or retarded.

What you are describing is the present food crisis in the third world where
people were paying 80% of their income for food because high cost small
stories. The prices for food have now gone up tens of percent and people
are starting to starve to death all over the world because of that increase.

Go to the third world and starve to death. It should be good experience for
you to learn about reality. Much better than having your mommy and daddy
paying for your every wish.

[William]

Post by Jack May

Post by William
The fact that you have to get in your car to go shopping should be
considered inconvenient to you.

So you think there should be a Costco, Home Depot, and multiple other big
box stores within walking distance of every house. How can that be even
remotely possible?  Big box stores draw major percentages of people because
of their large selection and lower prices.
Getting in a car to go shopping is far less inconvenient than having to shop
at tiny stores all around you at extremely high prices with extremely
limited selection.  Obviously you have absolutely no idea of what you are
talking about, if you are not totally insane or retarded.
What you are describing is the present food crisis in the third world where
people were paying 80% of their income for food because high cost small
stories.  The prices for food have now gone up tens of percent and people
are starting to starve to death all over the world because of that increase.
Go to the third world and starve to death.  It should be good experience for
you to learn about reality.   Much better than having your mommy and daddy
paying for your every wish.

The current road setup of suburbs could not allow this convenience of
which your suburban mindset can not comprehend. But if suburbs were
built with the grid system instead of the Dr.Suess system then it
would be possible to walk to the store. They have Wal-Marts and Home
Depots in cities as well as suburbs.....

[Jack May]

Post by William
The current road setup of suburbs could not allow this convenience of

which your suburban mindset can not comprehend. But if suburbs were
built with the grid system instead of the Dr.Suess system then it
would be possible to walk to the store. They have Wal-Marts and Home

Post by William
Depots in cities as well as suburbs.....

Suburbs are mainly built with a grid system. That still does not mean it is
practical to walk to Wal-Marts and Home Depots. Walking means you are
limited to one round trip per day of about a mile and a half from your home.

Big box store requires attracting a lot of people to have the amount of
sales required to produce the volume required for the lower prices and large
selection of products. Typically big box stores are spaced about ten to
twenty miles to serve the large customer area they require. That is not
walking distance.

I have a Costco within a mile and a half of me but I consider it highly
undesirable to walk to CostCo and carry large items back home. Being
limited to a radius of a mile and a half is back to a highly inefficient
third world economy which is a miserable life. People that are forced to
live in a third world economy usually don't like it either.

The mile and a half does not even include the time to get to work and make
money to buy things. You pushing the most undesirable style of living as
your "ideal" for absolutely no reason that most people would accept as
acceptable.

Your very rich life in the US is a consequence of a very efficient economy
where time & economic efficiency are of high importance.

[Pat]

Post by William

Post by William
The current road setup of suburbs could not allow this convenience of

which your suburban mindset can not comprehend. But if suburbs were
built with the grid system instead of the Dr.Suess system then it
would be possible to walk to the store. They have Wal-Marts and Home

Post by William
Depots in cities as well as suburbs.....

Suburbs are mainly built with a grid system.  That still does not mean it is
practical to walk to Wal-Marts and Home Depots.  Walking means you are
limited to one round trip per day of about a mile and a half from your home.
Big box store requires attracting a lot of people to have the amount of
sales required to produce the volume required for the lower prices and large
selection of products.  Typically big box stores are spaced about ten to
twenty miles to serve the large  customer area they require.  That is not
walking distance.
I have a Costco within a mile and a half of me but I consider it highly
undesirable to walk to CostCo and carry large items back home.  Being
limited to a radius of a mile and a half is back to a highly inefficient
third world economy which is a miserable life.  People that are forced to
live in a third world economy usually don't like it either.
The mile and a half does not even include the time to get to work and make
money to buy things.  You pushing the most undesirable style of living as
your "ideal" for absolutely no reason that most people would accept as
acceptable.
Your very rich life in the US is a consequence of a very efficient economy
where time & economic efficiency are of high importance.

There's a name for what he's after but I can't remember it. Something
lie Ramean Metro: Young, urban, poor and loving it. Sort of like
Yuppie without the "professional" part.

[William]

Post by Pat

Post by William

Post by William
The current road setup of suburbs could not allow this convenience of

which your suburban mindset can not comprehend. But if suburbs were
built with the grid system instead of the Dr.Suess system then it
would be possible to walk to the store. They have Wal-Marts and Home

Post by William
Depots in cities as well as suburbs.....

Suburbs are mainly built with a grid system. That still does not mean it is
practical to walk to Wal-Marts and Home Depots. Walking means you are
limited to one round trip per day of about a mile and a half from your home.
Big box store requires attracting a lot of people to have the amount of
sales required to produce the volume required for the lower prices and large
selection of products. Typically big box stores are spaced about ten to
twenty miles to serve the large customer area they require. That is not
walking distance.
I have a Costco within a mile and a half of me but I consider it highly
undesirable to walk to CostCo and carry large items back home. Being
limited to a radius of a mile and a half is back to a highly inefficient
third world economy which is a miserable life. People that are forced to
live in a third world economy usually don't like it either.
The mile and a half does not even include the time to get to work and make
money to buy things. You pushing the most undesirable style of living as
your "ideal" for absolutely no reason that most people would accept as
acceptable.
Your very rich life in the US is a consequence of a very efficient economy
where time & economic efficiency are of high importance.

Whats wrong with being efficient?

Post by Pat
There's a name for what he's after but I can't remember it. Something
lie Ramean Metro: Young, urban, poor and loving it. Sort of like
Yuppie without the "professional" part.

[Pat]

Post by William

Post by William

Post by William
The current road setup of suburbs could not allow this convenience of

which your suburban mindset can not comprehend. But if suburbs were
built with the grid system instead of the Dr.Suess system then it
would be possible to walk to the store. They have Wal-Marts and Home

Post by William
Depots in cities as well as suburbs.....

Suburbs are mainly built with a grid system.  That still does not mean it is
practical to walk to Wal-Marts and Home Depots.  Walking means you are
limited to one round trip per day of about a mile and a half from your home.
Big box store requires attracting a lot of people to have the amount of
sales required to produce the volume required for the lower prices and large
selection of products.  Typically big box stores are spaced about ten to
twenty miles to serve the large  customer area they require.  That is not
walking distance.
I have a Costco within a mile and a half of me but I consider it highly
undesirable to walk to CostCo and carry large items back home.  Being
limited to a radius of a mile and a half is back to a highly inefficient
third world economy which is a miserable life.  People that are forced to
live in a third world economy usually don't like it either.
The mile and a half does not even include the time to get to work and make
money to buy things.  You pushing the most undesirable style of living as
your "ideal" for absolutely no reason that most people would accept as
acceptable.
Your very rich life in the US is a consequence of a very efficient economy
where time & economic efficiency are of high importance.

Whats wrong with being efficient?

There's a name for what he's after but I can't remember it.  Something
lie Ramean Metro:  Young, urban, poor and loving it.  Sort of like
Yuppie without the "professional" part.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

One could argue that urban living isn't very efficient. Urban
construction causes a LOT of pollution -- concrete, for example is
incredibly polluting. Also, you urban environments trap a lot of heat
in the summer and therefore need AC much more than non-urban areas.

But if that's what you like, then good for you. Enjoy it. Somebody's
going to live in the city so it might as well be you.

I don't dislike cities or city living for YOU. It's just not for ME.
I've lived in cities and I just don't see the allure. But that's just
me. You wouldn't see the allure of living here, either. So there ya
go.

[William]

Post by Pat

Post by William

Post by Pat

Post by William

Post by William
The current road setup of suburbs could not allow this convenience of

which your suburban mindset can not comprehend. But if suburbs were
built with the grid system instead of the Dr.Suess system then it
would be possible to walk to the store. They have Wal-Marts and Home

Post by William
Depots in cities as well as suburbs.....

Suburbs are mainly built with a grid system. That still does not mean it is
practical to walk to Wal-Marts and Home Depots. Walking means you are
limited to one round trip per day of about a mile and a half from your home.
Big box store requires attracting a lot of people to have the amount of
sales required to produce the volume required for the lower prices and large
selection of products. Typically big box stores are spaced about ten to
twenty miles to serve the large customer area they require. That is not
walking distance.
I have a Costco within a mile and a half of me but I consider it highly
undesirable to walk to CostCo and carry large items back home. Being
limited to a radius of a mile and a half is back to a highly inefficient
third world economy which is a miserable life. People that are forced to
live in a third world economy usually don't like it either.
The mile and a half does not even include the time to get to work and make
money to buy things. You pushing the most undesirable style of living as
your "ideal" for absolutely no reason that most people would accept as
acceptable.
Your very rich life in the US is a consequence of a very efficient economy
where time & economic efficiency are of high importance.

Whats wrong with being efficient?

Post by Pat
There's a name for what he's after but I can't remember it. Something
lie Ramean Metro: Young, urban, poor and loving it. Sort of like
Yuppie without the "professional" part.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

One could argue that urban living isn't very efficient. Urban
construction causes a LOT of pollution -- concrete, for example is
incredibly polluting. Also, you urban environments trap a lot of heat
in the summer and therefore need AC much more than non-urban areas.
But if that's what you like, then good for you. Enjoy it. Somebody's
going to live in the city so it might as well be you.
I don't dislike cities or city living for YOU. It's just not for ME.
I've lived in cities and I just don't see the allure. But that's just
me. You wouldn't see the allure of living here, either. So there ya
go.

Pat, I thank you for this but you are missing my point. My argument is
not that every place everywhere should become a big city. I have not a
problem with rural towns and such. What I am arguing against is Urban
Sprawl and how it is constructed so badly. And that in 10 years, or
maybe 50, if we keep going on track the way we are now every place in
the US will either be a recently sprawled suburb or a major US City.

[Jack May]

.

Post by William
Pat, I thank you for this but you are missing my point. My argument is
not that every place everywhere should become a big city. I have not a
problem with rural towns and such. What I am arguing against is Urban
Sprawl and how it is constructed so badly. And that in 10 years, or
maybe 50, if we keep going on track the way we are now every place in
the US will either be a recently sprawled suburb or a major US City.

The area taken by cities is a few percent. Your argument is built on lies
and has no validity.

[William]

Post by Jack May
.

Post by William
Pat, I thank you for this but you are missing my point. My argument is
not that every place everywhere should become a big city. I have not a
problem with rural towns and such. What I am arguing against is Urban
Sprawl and how it is constructed so badly. And that in 10 years, or
maybe 50, if we keep going on track the way we are now every place in
the US will either be a recently sprawled suburb or a major US City.

The area taken by cities is a few percent. Your argument is built on lies
and has no validity.

Just between 1982 and 1997 alone, the amount of rural land loss in the
US added up to the size of Maine and New Hampshire. If this rate
continues to the year 2050 – when today’s toddlers are middle-aged –
the United States will have lost an additional 110 million acres of
rural countryside. That’s about equal to the combined areas of
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia.

http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/farmland.html

Pat, I would be afraid.....

[William]

.

[Clark F Morris]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Pat

Post by Pat

Post by William

Post by William

Post by William
The current road setup of suburbs could not allow this convenience of

which your suburban mindset can not comprehend. But if suburbs were
built with the grid system instead of the Dr.Suess system then it
would be possible to walk to the store. They have Wal-Marts and Home

Post by William
Depots in cities as well as suburbs.....

Suburbs are mainly built with a grid system.  That still does not mean it is
practical to walk to Wal-Marts and Home Depots.  Walking means you are
limited to one round trip per day of about a mile and a half from your home.
Big box store requires attracting a lot of people to have the amount of
sales required to produce the volume required for the lower prices and large
selection of products.  Typically big box stores are spaced about ten to
twenty miles to serve the large  customer area they require.  That is not
walking distance.
I have a Costco within a mile and a half of me but I consider it highly
undesirable to walk to CostCo and carry large items back home.  Being
limited to a radius of a mile and a half is back to a highly inefficient
third world economy which is a miserable life.  People that are forced to
live in a third world economy usually don't like it either.
The mile and a half does not even include the time to get to work and make
money to buy things.  You pushing the most undesirable style of living as
your "ideal" for absolutely no reason that most people would accept as
acceptable.
Your very rich life in the US is a consequence of a very efficient economy
where time & economic efficiency are of high importance.

Whats wrong with being efficient?

There's a name for what he's after but I can't remember it.  Something
lie Ramean Metro:  Young, urban, poor and loving it.  Sort of like
Yuppie without the "professional" part.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

One could argue that urban living isn't very efficient. Urban
construction causes a LOT of pollution -- concrete, for example is
incredibly polluting. Also, you urban environments trap a lot of heat
in the summer and therefore need AC much more than non-urban areas.
But if that's what you like, then good for you. Enjoy it. Somebody's
going to live in the city so it might as well be you.
I don't dislike cities or city living for YOU. It's just not for ME.
I've lived in cities and I just don't see the allure. But that's just
me. You wouldn't see the allure of living here, either. So there ya
go.

As someone who saw four bears in the fields above his house the other
day (and 18 deer a couple of weeks before that) and who risks
scratches picking wild blackberries, I like both the city and the
country. I even have rural transit within 5 miles of my house. If I
lived in town (around a thousand population) I would have it in
walking distance for trips to nearby towns on an every other hour
basis. Live theater is available periodically in the town of under
500 people that is 16 miles away.

Clark Morris

[William]

Post by William

Post by William
The current road setup of suburbs could not allow this convenience of

which your suburban mindset can not comprehend. But if suburbs were
built with the grid system instead of the Dr.Suess system then it
would be possible to walk to the store. They have Wal-Marts and Home

Post by William
Depots in cities as well as suburbs.....

Suburbs are mainly built with a grid system. That still does not mean it is
practical to walk to Wal-Marts and Home Depots. Walking means you are
limited to one round trip per day of about a mile and a half from your home.

Whatever, this is not the grid system. Loading Image...
Suburbs that have Cul-de-sacs do not have the grid system. Suburbs
that do have the grid system(older first ring suburbs) I am not
talking about.

Post by William
Big box store requires attracting a lot of people to have the amount of
sales required to produce the volume required for the lower prices and large
selection of products. Typically big box stores are spaced about ten to
twenty miles to serve the large customer area they require. That is not
walking distance.
I have a Costco within a mile and a half of me but I consider it highly
undesirable to walk to CostCo and carry large items back home. Being
limited to a radius of a mile and a half is back to a highly inefficient
third world economy which is a miserable life. People that are forced to
live in a third world economy usually don't like it either.
The mile and a half does not even include the time to get to work and make
money to buy things. You pushing the most undesirable style of living as
your "ideal" for absolutely no reason that most people would accept as
acceptable.
Your very rich life in the US is a consequence of a very efficient economy
where time & economic efficiency are of high importance.

I bet you have never heard of walking to pick up some groceries either
then?

[Jack May]

Post by William
I bet you have never heard of walking to pick up some groceries either
then?

Why would I desire to do that? I certainly don't want to waste my time
with such childish views.

[William]

Post by Jack May

Post by William
I bet you have never heard of walking to pick up some groceries either
then?

Why would I desire to do that? I certainly don't want to waste my time
with such childish views.

Childish? And paying $4.00 per gallon this summer is the mature thing
to do? Try doing what 80% of New Yorkers do.(Not own a car)

[Enough Already]

Post by William
Translation: Why suburbs suck, part two
This time I shall focus on the the more material, or structural,
reasons for whats wrong with modern suburbs.
First off, they are built in winding, curving roads which make it
difficult to navigate through, it's inefficient gas wise, and is just
a lack of common sense. It as well makes it impossible to install any
sort of mass transit system.

Sometimes that's because they're increasingly built on hills, since so
much flat land has already been developed.

Post by William
Second, they are built without sidewalks as to promote driving instead
of walking. Roads are for cars, not 4 year olds. Or any year old for
that matter.

Very true. Sidewalks are seen as an added expense, or as cutting into
the size of front yards.

Post by William
Thirdly, the only stores in suburbs are large strip malls placed in a
way where everyone must drive everywhere to get anywhere.

True, but many people don't like to live in crowded situations more
suitable for foot traffic. Greater housing density just pretends that
population growth is a natural thing. It doesn't solve the underlying
problem of limits.

Post by William
Does anyone have any problems with these three straight forward
statements?

Yes. They fail to mention that mindless population growth is the main
driver of sprawl, and that a technology called birth control is the
one thing that could prevent it.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/

In the unnatural realm of money, debts become profits and depletion
enables growth.

[William]

Post by Enough Already

Post by William
Translation: Why suburbs suck, part two
This time I shall focus on the the more material, or structural,
reasons for whats wrong with modern suburbs.
First off, they are built in winding, curving roads which make it
difficult to navigate through, it's inefficient gas wise, and is just
a lack of common sense. It as well makes it impossible to install any
sort of mass transit system.

Sometimes that's because they're increasingly built on hills, since so
much flat land has already been developed.

Maybe, but that should not dictate the convenience of the system. Have
you ever heard of this city called San Francisco?

Post by Enough Already

Post by William
Second, they are built without sidewalks as to promote driving instead
of walking. Roads are for cars, not 4 year olds. Or any year old for
that matter.

Very true. Sidewalks are seen as an added expense, or as cutting into
the size of front yards.

Post by William
Thirdly, the only stores in suburbs are large strip malls placed in a
way where everyone must drive everywhere to get anywhere.

True, but many people don't like to live in crowded situations more
suitable for foot traffic. Greater housing density just pretends that
population growth is a natural thing. It doesn't solve the underlying
problem of limits.

I guess that explains why studies show that low density residents on
average weigh 6 pounds more then high density residents.......

Post by Enough Already

Post by William
Does anyone have any problems with these three straight forward
statements?

Yes. They fail to mention that mindless population growth is the main
driver of sprawl, and that a technology called birth control is the
one thing that could prevent it.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
In the unnatural realm of money, debts become profits and depletion
enables growth.